What would you do? Canon -> Nikon?

dunganick

dunganick

Messages
1,458
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, i need some opinions,

Im considering a move to the Dark Side.

Chosen subject: Motorsports, Sports

Current Canon Kit:

40d (for sale)
50d
70-200 2.8
100-300 F4
(few other bits and pieces, not really used)

I am looking at upgrading this to:

50d
1dmk3
70-200 2.8
120-300 2.8

However i am also considering this line up (as Nikon has impressed me more in AF performance and less so, but still to a degree in ISO Performance)

D300
D700 (with a view to moving to the D3 in the next year)
70-200 2.8 (is the VR2 that much better?)
120-300 2.8

Now my question is, will the AF on the 1dmk3 impress me suitably that i wonder why i ever considered changing? Its fair to say that the AF performance in low light doesn't impress me on my 50d, and i cant fall in love with the 70-200.

The 1.3x crop on the Canon is ideal for what i want, but from what i see of its ISO performance relative to the D3, its a 1 horse race. But then i cant afford the D3 at the moment, only the D300 and D700 (which in the hands of Gribbsy and Andy...cant remember his alias, have impressed hugely)

Thoughts people? I don't want comments along the lines of Nikon are just better, something constructive. Also are there any new models waiting in the wings? I know the D300s exists. Im thinking more D700 as i don't want to loose a lot of money on any of the bodies so i can sell and upgrade once i have the cash.

Thanks all,
 
For this sort of investment, see if you can try out Nikon and Canon at the same time. One over each arm if necessary.

Doesn't matter what anyone else says here - folks move back and forth so you won't get a concensus, and ultimately the Canon folks will say stay Canon, and the Nikon folks will say Nikon. Thats the nature of these questions.

So IMHO save yourself a lot of grief and see if you can try them out for yourself.
 
I have never done the move so couldnt say. The one thing I would support is answer number 2. You are considering a substantial financial outlay. Go to a pro store and try out the products. Even better hire out the bodys and a lens or 2. Give it a thorough testing. Guarantee after that you will have a muchbetter idea on handling etc in the real world rather than with some sales person twittering on.
 
Nick,

If you haven't read it, go back and read my now 18 month old shootout between the 1D MkIII and the D300:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=80289&highlight=competition

The AF on the Canon xxD series is nothing like the AF on the 1D or the D300/D700/D3. On either body poor focus is rarely a reason for binning a shot IMHO, it really does just work (ignoring all the Canon moaners).

Ultimately the decision comes down to pricing I think you will find. Price up both solutions, because both will be much better than what you have right now.

Lastly, if ISO doesn't bother you, seriously consider the D300 for at least now, and forget the FX bodies. I really would not want to be shooting *just* FX for motorsport, not without more glass than my meagre bag currently contains. Personally, I would want to be able to have at least a decent Nikon 400mm at f4 minimum before ditching DX. Maybe I will feel different when the D4 is 18mp so I can crop a bit more and they've developed the new AF system with a wider focus point distribution.

Until then, I build my Nikon lens collection to go with my D300.... and it works lovely as you can see!
 
As a user of neither, I'd echo the comments of 'try before you buy'.

You are obviously used to shooting moving subjects, so the user ability shouldn't come into it (it is surprising how many people with the latest Niks think waving their camera in the general direction of a moving thing will be enough to get a good shot..).

I would advise you get your research done before trying anything. There are much more bells and whistles to tweak on the 1D and Nikons vs the 50D and 40D - download the pdf of the manual, study it and check out recommended settings before trying. Otherwise it might be easy to dismiss one camera over another for poor setup reasons.

I have a friend considering the Nikkor 70-200 VRII at the moment. It seems, on DX, the difference is more marginal, but noticeably better wide-open performance. On FX, corner vignetting and, in particular, corner sharpness is much better. This might be of interest more to motorsport where keeping the subject away from the centre of the frame (either by virtue of it being tricky not to or for compositional reasons) is more critical than to the wedding togs who might use it.

Andy
 
Could someone bung me an example of ISO 3200 on the D300 or D700

Price wise the two options are the same outlay to me.

ISO performance is important, however its not really until next winter that i will be using it as the Rugby/chavball/hockey is mostly during the day currently and the 50d can deal with this, so im sure the D300/700 would be fine.

Full frame is a concern Andy, but at the same time it would be useful. I can get away with buying a medium lens for the d300 that then becomes a wider angle lens on the d700 (like i will actually swap when im running up the pitlane...)

I dont expect a clear answer from this thread (far from), i just want to hear why some people follow each religion. For example i used to say Canon because i didnt like Nikons AF-S system, however with the bodies im looking at now its not an issue, but at the time it made Canon a more sensible choice.
 
Sent you some samples Nick... check your mailbox :D
 
Just upgraded from the 1DMK2 N. To the 1DMK3,

Picked it up yesterday at Focus.

Here's the best bit £1440 Brand new out of the box.

Haven't had an opportunity to test it out yet.
 
I've been hearing about all these cracking deals at Focus. This is one thing that persuades me. But i think the 50d is a rubbish camera, and i need a 2nd camera with a 1.6 crop that is good, albeit less so with Canon because of the 1d's 1.3 crop.

If the D3 went to £1600 that would seal the deal. But at the moment they are about 2k at best used. £500 more than a used 1d mk3.

But from what i read its £500 more camera.

See my issue!, add into this the need to always have a camera for the weekend work! i might just buy a D300 and 70-200 and see how i like it. Can always sell it.
 
You're not the only one considering changing Nick, if I hadn't built up my collection of Canon stuff the deed would probably already have been done. Having said that, I've seen what the 5D mark II can do, which is what I would be going for, and I'm a resolute believer in talent before equipment.

In the end I'd just go with whatever you feel most comfortable with. I suspect Nikon probably has the edge at the moment, but it's not as though the Canon isn't competent. It doesn't help that there are so many questioning the move recently, it puts ideas into people's heads (including mine!).

Be interested to see what you end up with anyway mate. :)
 
In theory the D700S will be "released" sometime this year, but probably don't expect to be able to get your paws on it until January 2011 at the earliest.
 
The D300S replacement must be due in the not too distant future, might be worth getting a D300s if the price falls or just wait for the new version?
 
I don't think we are going to actually see any new top end Nikon's on the streets this motorsport season.
 
The D300s seems so close to the D300 i cant see the point. Video is no interest to me, and it uses the same sensor as the D300, with the same ISO performance, same screen etc... I cant see why i would want one?

The D700 is my main concern, its a more expensive camera so if it gets superseeded in the next few months i stand to loose a bit of cash as everyone sells their D700's cheap.
 
dunganick said:
The D300s seems so close to the D300 i cant see the point. Video is no interest to me, and it uses the same sensor as the D300, with the same ISO performance, same screen etc... I cant see why i would want one?

The D700 is my main concern, its a more expensive camera so if it gets superseeded in the next few months i stand to loose a bit of cash as everyone sells their D700's cheap.
Click to expand...

If you are set on the change, why not get a second-hand D300 first? - you'll be able to sell it for what you bought it for anyway if/when a D700 replacement appears.

Andy
 
AndyElliott said:
If you are set on the change, why not get a second-hand D300 first? - you'll be able to sell it for what you bought it for anyway if/when a D700 replacement appears.

Andy
Click to expand...

I think this is the plan at the moment.

I wont buy a 7d as if i was going to stay with Canon i would go for the 1dmk3 for the (apparently) better AF performance in low light.

The 7D also appears to suffer like the 50d with having too many pixels on too small a sensor, giving a horrid high iso/heavy crop look.
 
When you read some of these threads you wonder how anybody managed to take Photos 30, 40 , 50 years ago, no auto focus, no high iso, no Photoshop, amazing how the guys that shot the testing of the Buncing Bomb in the 40s managed to get anything at all.






Yes this is sarcasm, but true none the less.
 
Because the consumer of such photos didn't care and to be honest, they were all pretty soft and mushy compared to the glossy prints we get today and editors expect....
 
The 1D Mk III and a 120-300mm f/2.8 looks a good combo. I use a 300mm f/2.8 IS for motorsports that works for me.
 
There are some small ISO performance upgrades in the D300s from the D300 just under a stop I think (i.e. ISO 1600 on d300 looks only a tiny bit better than ISO3200 on the d300s) the main differences are the FPS and the Video.

TBH there are always more cameras waiting in the wings and looking in that direction is where madness lies. If the rumours are true Nikon are already field testing the D4 but you are unlikely to see it in the shops until late 2011 or even early 2012. The general thought goes why would Nikon bother releasing the D4 when the D3s is already about a stop better then the 1Dmk4 in ISO and has equal performance everywhere else (other than video) and they are getting a stream of pros swapping because of it. The other thing to think about is that 3 years ago Canon were spanking Nikon with their cameras but in just a very short time period this has swapped, will that swap back in 3 years?

If you do swap and your main interest is motorsport I think you probably be better with a crop camera so a D300+grip or D300s+grip. The D700 is georgous and really is a mini D3 (and has a few more fetures e.g. remote flash commander built in and sensor cleaning) but due to it being FF you loose some reach and would possibly mean cropping in post meaning and losing size.

However, it's not an easy choice, I should know I've just got the D3s and I'm currently struggling to decide which of the other cameras must go and there is a good reason to keep each one S5, D300 or D700 (they will go in the for sale section once I've decided).

Hope that helps
 
Thanks people, i've decided i will buy a D300 and 70-200 to trial over a few Sports games and Race meetings, if it lives up to expectations the Canon gear will be getting the elbow and i will get the D700 and 120-300.

Nikon battery grips are silly money! And i will be after two of them, Ouch!
 
I looked at them, but i would have to buy the EN-EL4/EN-EL4a battery as im after the 8fps, thats £20 and a charger too i think?

Im not sure i could be dealing with hundreds of AA batteries.

Maybe i will give one a go on the first camera, see how it feels (i have a phottix grip on my 50d that i find fine).
 
dunganick said:
I looked at them, but i would have to buy the EN-EL4/EN-EL4a battery as im after the 8fps, thats £20 and a charger too i think?

Im not sure i could be dealing with hundreds of AA batteries.

Maybe i will give one a go on the first camera, see how it feels (i have a phottix grip on my 50d that i find fine).
Click to expand...
that is right, if you buy an original you have to buy the en-el4 adaptor seperate, i know what you mean about the aa batteries, but for the price is gives it all. and it very well made, also i find the buttons better on the grip then on the camera,

en-el4 charer is £40 and an en-el4 battery is £20

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Quick-Charger...ography_DigitalCamBatt_RL?hash=item335adb2290

grip + extras.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Battery-Grip-...ography_DigitalCamBatt_RL?hash=item335a728a1c
 
scottthehat said:
that is right, if you buy an original you have to buy the en-el4 adaptor seperate, i know what you mean about the aa batteries, but for the price is gives it all. and it very well made, also i find the buttons better on the grip then on the camera,

en-el4 charer is £40 and an en-el4 battery is £20

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Quick-Charger...ography_DigitalCamBatt_RL?hash=item335adb2290
Click to expand...

So even a Nikon grip wont do 8fps when loaded with the standard rechargeable battery?
 
Aye but 30 quid gets you a charger and a battery off ebay, another offbrand battery is 20 quid and they last a good while.
 
Nick,

Personally, 8fps is a waste of time (and money). Unless your subject is not requiring serious refocussing between frames (eg its someone say standing there talking and you have a reasonably large DOF) then the camera, as good as it is, stands little chance of nailing the focus between frames.

I shoot all the time in the low FPS mode "continuous low", which gives it a little longer to focus between frames if I decide to fire a burst. Even the normal (6fps?) of high speed yields very iffy results.

The only advantage to the bigger battery is that it can run to about 3000 shots before its flat, but then again, I get about 1500 shots from the standard EN-EL3 battery and I have two in the camera and two more in my bag...
 
I find the 8fps very very handy for certain sports shots, if i got the timing wrong i would miss the shot so id rather fire off a burst of 8 and get 1-2 of the shot i need than fire 5 and miss it
 
Well 8fps would be helpful for football/rugby, where quite often i spend quite a long time waiting for the game to come to me, so i want to make sure i defiantly catch the moment. However if the Hit rate starts to fall it is starting to sound a bit like Canon again.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top